Gaza conflict but one of Israel's security woes

Date: November 23 2012

The Middle East faces a new era of rising instability.

WITHOUT negotiation, there can be little hope for lasting peace in any conflict. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza, brokered by Egypt and the US, is welcome; it ends a week of bloody conflict that has reportedly cost the lives of more than 135 Palestinians and five Israelis. The conflict, comprising rocket attacks from Gaza and retaliatory airstrikes by Israel, came after weeks of rocket attacks on southern Israel by Hamas and other groups. These attacks were an escalation of activity that has been occurring in recent years.

The Age believes Israel has not only the right to exist as a state, but to protect itself. We also believe the Palestinians have a right to a sovereign state, and we hope the ceasefire might provide a path to re-energise and advance talks on a two-state solution to the long-running tensions that plague the Middle East and cause humanitarian and geopolitical anxieties throughout the world.

We are hopeful, but far from optimistic. The ceasefire appears fragile. Hamas does not control all the groups believed to have been firing into Israel, groups that deny Israel's very right to exist. And Israel has amassed tens of thousands of troops close to the border and says it is ready to send them in should more rockets be fired into Israel.

The ceasefire comes amid an unusually opaque and menacing context, even by the standards of the Middle East. The Age's lack of optimism extends to the entire region, where instability is mounting in various places. Israel, in particular, must be feeling increasingly vulnerable; it is facing potential threats on every border - and beyond.

The two-state solution - which means the amalgamation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem into a new state of Palestine - is difficult to envisage in current circumstances. The leaders of the West Bank and Gaza are starkly at odds; the Palestinian Authority led by Fatah, which administers the West Bank, is open to negotiation, while Hamas, which administers the Gaza Strip, is, as recent events dramatically illustrate, openly hostile to Israel.

The outlook for the two-state solution is further clouded by the Palestinian Authority's determination to seek recognition for Palestine at the United Nations on November 29. It has the numbers, but a ''moral minority'' of nations, including the US, Australia and many European states, is expected to vote against the proposition, because it would pre-empt negotiations with Israel.

Perhaps the most menacing potential flashpoint in the region is Iran's incremental progress towards nuclear-weapons capability. Whoever wins the January national election in Israel - hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the favourite - will face a decision with global consequences; whether to strike Iran should there be evidence it has reached the point of being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran is believed to be 90 per cent of the way there, which causes grave concern in Israel, given Iran's evident intention to play a dominant role in the region. Iran's ambitions have arguably been encouraged by the decreasing influence of the US in the Middle East under President Barack Obama.

The fears in Israel are being fuelled by other profound uncertainties in the region. Its peace treaty with Egypt looks far less stable with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood administration in Cairo, which is part of the spread of political Islam that has followed the Arab Spring - the popular uprisings that have deposed dictatorial rulers in several states. The robustness of Israel's other peace treaty, with Jordan, is also in doubt in light of growing grassroots agitation against the kingdom's rulers.

The tragedy of the Middle East is that the overwhelming majority of its citizens, no matter their religion or nationality, want the same thing: to live in peace and harmony. They deserve leaders who are committed to keep working towards that goal.

Outsourcing remains ripe for rorts

GOVERNMENTS spend other people's money; that is, taxpayers' money. Victorians rightly expect someone to keep to keep track of their money. Ted Baillieu led the Coalition into office in 2010 promising an overhaul of anti-corruption laws. In that year, an inquiry by Parliament's public accounts and estimates committee urged that the Auditor-General be given ''explicit authority'' to access financial information relating to public-private partnership. That power is glaringly absent from the government's package of integrity reforms.

As government increasingly relies on contractors to deliver projects and services, outgoing Auditor-General Des Pearson used his final annual report to deplore the fact that his ability to scrutinise taxpayer-funded projects has ''diminished rapidly'' because the 18-year-old Audit Act had not updated his mandate. Indeed, the Baillieu government has just increased the oversight of the Audit Office while failing to ensure the auditor can scrutinise what happens to public money when projects and services are contracted out.

Finance Minister Robert Clark has offered little advance on his bland response to the auditor's report seven weeks ago. The government is considering appropriate amendments to the Audit Act to extend the auditor's powers, which it supports ''in principle'' and will discuss with the incoming auditor-general.

The lack of urgency on this critical issue of integrity is perplexing. The ''follow the dollar'' power the auditor seeks is essential to ensure public money is not wasted or misappropriated by contractors. It is the only way the auditor can do his job of ensuring the public gets value for money. Most other states and the Commonwealth have enacted such powers. Yet in Victoria, which has led the way in outsourcing, projects and services costing billions of dollars escape scrutiny under ''commercial in confidence'' rules. Next year, the value of such outsourcing is set to total $8 billion.

It is outrageous that neither the Auditor-General nor the public accounts and estimates committee is able to establish exactly where all this money goes. As Mr Pearson told the committee in August, he is not seeking permission to audit the private sector. ''We are asking for information and assets in the hands of the private sector to enable us to hold government officials to account.''

The underlying principle at stake is simple: it's called democracy. The government will not have restored integrity to Victoria's governance until taxpayers, through the Audit Office and Parliament, can see that their money is spent properly on their behalf.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.